Not Only Nixon Could Go to China

Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and President Richard Nixon in China, February 1972 Forty years on, the myth persists.

President Richard Nixon’s visit to China 40 years ago this week is rightly remembered as a historic breakthrough. Decades later, however, few political myths are as persistent as the notion that “only Nixon could go to China.”

The mythology runs like this: Only a red-baiting, Commie-hating Republican could do something that would have been out of reach for a soft, left-liberal Democrat. Only a bellicose and unscrupulous anti-Communist, whose credibility with fellow conservatives would shield him from any domestic attack, could sup with the devil and become a peacemaker.

Advertisement

#ad#At the time of the rapprochement in 1971–72, the Democratic Senate leader, Mike Mansfield, declared: “Only a Republican, perhaps only a Nixon, could have made this break and gotten away with it.” The phrase “only Nixon could go to China” has since become part of the Anglosphere’s political lexicon to describe a moment when a political leader defies expectations by doing something that would anger his supporters if taken by someone without his credentials.

A Nixon-in-China moment is usually when a conservative surprises with a progressive stance. Think of Ronald Reagan’s detente with the Soviets, or George W. Bush’s $15 billion initiative to tackle AIDS in Africa that even won kudos from Bob Geldof. You could even argue that Disraeli made a Nixon-in-China move a century before the phrase was coined when the Tories, not the Liberals, enfranchised the masses.

But as we mark this week’s 40th anniversary of Nixon’s visit to the People’s Republic, it’s time to address the myth behind that famous phrase for such political gymnastics.

After all, the post1949 U.S. political consensus to isolate Communist China had collapsed several years before Nixon’s visit in February 1972. So radically had the political climate changed that even a liberal Democratic president could have met with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai without arousing the anger of Middle America.

In 1966, as serious doubts emerged about the Vietnam War and the Sino-Soviet split became increasingly evident, a great debate over China policy began. Opinion leaders — politicians, columnists, businesses, think tanks — began to criticize the nearly two-decade-old policy of pretending that the world’s most populous nation did not exist. The hitherto hard-line New York Times published no fewer than 20 editorials calling for a new policy of accommodating the Middle Kingdom. Polls showed dramatically rising public support for negotiating with Peking, easing the travel ban, and supporting mainland China’s admission into the United Nations. Further, in July 1966, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a nationwide address to advocate “reconciliation” with the Communist rulers. Clearly, a new era of U.S. understanding of China had already begun.

Meanwhile, Nixon was uncharacteristically silent. Since the Communist Revolution of 1949, and even after U.S. allies such as Britain and France had reestablished diplomatic relations with the mainland, the ambitious congressman, senator, vice president, and private citizen had built a reputation as a China hawk. In 1951, he even endorsed Senator Joe McCarthy’s charge that treasonous State Department officials had “lost China” by abandoning nationalist forces. And as late as June 1966, he warned that “appeasement [of] Red China [in Vietnam] would lead to World War III.”

From the summer of 1966 to the fall of 1967, however, he made no public comments about China policy. The silence was significant. In mid-1967, when he returned from his fifth Asian trip in as many years, Nixon revisited the subject in a much-publicized article in Foreign Affairs. In it, he advanced the idea of bringing Peking in from the cold. “Taking the long view,” he argued, “we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations.” Suddenly, we were all appeasers.

#page#To be sure, Nixon’s case for accommodating China was nuanced. After all, the last thing he wanted to do on the eve of the 1968 Republican primaries was to raise doubts about his conservative credentials. But Nixon, with a wet finger to the wind, had nonetheless recognized as early as 1966–67 that the anti-Communist climate had changed. No more red-baiting for him.

Why, then, did it take another five years before the door was opened? The answer has more to do with China’s xenophobic stance during the Cultural Revolution than with any hostility on Washington’s part. Indeed, when Nixon announced his decision to visit China, the amazing thing is that America and the world were amazed. Long gone were the days when mainstream politicians felt compelled to outlaw and blacklist anything Chinese.

#ad#Proponents of the Nixon-China myth make another argument: that only someone with such authority and credibility on the right of the Republican party would meet little resistance from his own side. Yet Nixon’s great flip-flop actually reflected mainstream Republicans’ increasing acceptance of China, and alienated the last of the true believers in isolating “Red China.”

Advertisement

For most conservatives, Nixon’s U-turn was the tipping point in a fractious relationship that had included several betrayals, including price-wage controls, ending the gold standard, and declaring that — gasp — “we are all Keynesians now.” During “the week that changed the world,” William F. Buckley Jr. — National Review editor and patron saint of American conservatives — complained that the U.S. had “lost, irretrievably, any remaining sense of moral mission in the world.” Leading conservative and NR publisher William Rusher called the betrayal of Taiwan “one of the greatest double crosses of all time.”

William Loeb, publisher of New Hampshire’s Union Leader, warned that Nixon’s ideological odyssey was “immoral, indecent, insane and fraught with danger for the survival of the United States.” Reverend Carl McIntire, chairman of the Vietnam “March for Victory” committee, charged that Nixon had “abandoned all moral principles: it is like God and the devil having a high-level meeting.” Republican senators and congressmen broke off relations with the White House. And actor John Wayne deplored the president’s week-long China trip as “a real shocker.”

If Nixon had been a Democrat, say the Nixon mythmakers, the Republican right would have been outraged over his China overtures. But they were clearly outraged anyway. By betraying conservatives, Nixon did himself no favors in the lead-up to the Watergate crisis when he desperately needed friends. So much for the argument that only Nixon could go to China.

— Tom Switzer is a research associate for the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre and editor of Spectator Australia.

Most Popular

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ...
Read More

Are children innocents or are they leaders?
Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development?
The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ...
Read More

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom.
We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ...
Read More

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ...
Read More

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ...
Read More

Howard Finkelstein, the Broward County public defender whose office is representing Nikolas Cruz, the suspect in the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., puts it bluntly:
This kid exhibited every single known red flag, from killing animals to having a cache of weapons to disruptive behavior to saying he wanted to be ...
Read More

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.”
American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ...
Read More

To understand the American gun-control debate, you have to understand the fundamentally different starting positions of the two sides. Among conservatives, there is the broad belief that the right to own a weapon for self-defense is every bit as inherent and unalienable as the right to speak freely or practice ...
Read More

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing.
This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ...
Read More